The Irascible Professor
SMIrreverent Commentary
on the State of Education in America Today

by Dr. Mark H. Shapiro

"In
science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would
be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples
might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal
time in physics classrooms." ... ... Stephen Jay Gould.

Commentary
of the Day - November 28, 2005: Another Shot Fired in the War Against
Science.

Larry Caldwell
is president and founder of an organization called "Quality
Science Education for All", which says that its mission is "to secure
and defend the right of all students in America to receive a quality science
education. By 'Quality Science Education,' we mean a science education
that exposes students to the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary
theory." It appears that they carry out this mission mostly by taking
legal action
against public entities in an attempt to change the way evolution is
taught.

In this particular
case the Jeanne Caldwell, in her lawsuit against the biologists and an
official of the National Science Foundation -- which provided funding for
the web site, claims that they have violated the "establishment clause"
of the First Amendment by including the following statement on the site
along with a link to a page at the National Center for Science Education
web site that lists several
religious organizations that find no incompatibility between religion and
evolution. One section of the Berkeley web site discusses the
many misconceptions that many people have about evolution including the
following:

Misconception:
"Evolution and religion are incompatible."Response: Religion
and science (evolution) are very different things. In science, only
natural causes are used to explain natural phenomena, while religion deals
with beliefs that are beyond the natural world.

The misconception
that one always has to choose between science and religion is incorrect.
Of course, some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science (e.g.,
the belief that the world and all life on it was created in six literal
days); however, most religious groups have no conflict with the theory
of evolution or other scientific findings. In fact, many religious
people, including theologians, feel that a deeper understanding of nature
actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the scientific community
there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept
evolution.

Although the IP would
have changed one word in the second sentence of the last paragraph (so
that it would read "... many religious groups ..." rather than "...most
religious groups ..."), he can find nothing in that statement nor in the
posting of a link to religious organizations that find no substantive conflict
between religion and evolution that comes remotely close to violating the
establishment clause of the Constitution. Legal precedent surrounding
the establishment clause is extensive. Government agencies cannot
establish a church, favor one religion over another, or force individuals
to adopt any particular set of religious beliefs. Likewise, government
funds cannot be used to promote one religious group over another, to provide
religious indoctrination, or to aid activities that would create an excessive
entanglement between government and religion.

The web site statement
and link merely state a fact; namely, that many religious groups and many
very religious individuals, including many scientists, find no incompatibility
between their particular religious views and the scientific facts of evolution.
Now, of course, there are many religious groups and individuals who hold
beliefs that are incompatible with biological evolution. But, that
doesn't make evolution automatically incompatible with religion in general.

In the IP's view,
the Caldwell's have little chance of prevailing in their lawsuit.
As the Mercury News article states "The courts in many cases have
said evolution is a scientific idea and there is no prohibition on the
government teaching a scientific idea even if it conflicts with some .....
religious beliefs." But, the IP also believes that the real purpose
of the lawsuit is not to win, but to harass those who teach about evolution,
and in this case teach about evolution very effectively. By mounting
a variety of legal challenges to the teaching of evolution, opponents hope
to intimidate teachers so that we return to the days when evolution was
hardly mentioned in high school biology textbooks and was barely mentioned
in the classroom. The opponents, in the IP's view, are not motivated
so much by a certainty in their own religious views as they are by the
fear that evolution might actually be correct.